Clarifying non-3D

Thursday, May 1, 2025

7 a.m. My question deferred from yesterday: Don’t large parts of the non-3D exist only in non-3D and not 3D?

That’s looking at it sort of backwards. It is more like, it requires a special orientation to exist in 3D at all. Everything in 3D is necessarily also in non-3D, but not everything in non-3D is in 3D.

An image or analogy would help.

All the burners on your stovetop are part of the stove, but not all the stove is burners.

Not sure that is going to do it.

The 3D is a created space, remember. It is a collection of qualities exaggerated in order to produce certain effects held to be desirable.

I felt we almost had the analogy, but it disappeared between one word and the next, you could say.

Patience. It will emerge when we provide enough negative space.

A created space. You all said that at the beginning, two dozen years ago, but not much since.

The order in which concepts are considered can be as important as the content. The student will be creating tentative structures throughout the process of instruction, and those structures may later assist or hinder greater comprehension. It makes a difference if we teach A, B, C rather than M, N, O, let alone teaching A, C, D and later having to explain why we initially disregarded B. And the order we use in one situation is not the same as we might in a different relationship, for of course the relation of teacher to student is an active factor in what can be conveyed. No one can teach a stubborn materialist in the same way as a flighty scatterbrained idealist, say, or a feet-on-the-ground, intelligently skeptical person, or a convinced intuitive, or any of these with this or that particular intellectual and emotional background. The facts don’t vary, but the presentation must, if there is to be any meeting of minds.

All right.

Let’s try it at a generalized level, and see if the idea comes through. As usual, we expect that some will find the question trivially easy to see, and others may wrack their brain for a bit.

Every generalized condition may have specific variances. In fact, it is very likely to have them, if it is to be complicated enough to provide conditions of much interest.

Nature differentiates into species after differentiating into an animal or plant kingdom. Humans differentiate into races, races into sub-races. Amoebae divide and produce only more amoebae, nothing else. The rest of nature flourishes by experimentation, subdivision, etc.

Any machine is made up of parts. All the parts of a car are part of the car, but the car is not the sum of its parts.

Perhaps not so good an example.

No. Well, let’s try this: A desert is an environment, a specialized combination of elements, All deserts are part of earth, but not all earth is desert. All creatures within the desert are dependent upon it, but the desert is not dependent on their being there.

A better example, it occurs to me, you gave us long ago: Humans need to breathe air. Air doesn’t need to be breathed by humans.

That is true but not quite to the point here. We may be misleading you by mentioning dependence.

Let’s try it this way. What we are calling the non-3D has as its invisible linguistic counterpart the idea of a “3D” to be the non-3D of. What we call the All-D was to give the idea of 3D and non-3D being parts of the same system, rather than as in any way independent of each other. But in the present case, it is almost a mistake (and is at least confusing) to say that non-3D can exist without being part of 3D. The statement misleads in that two different conditions are being referred to under the same “non-3D” label.

I begin to see that. There is a specific part of non-3D that is bound to 3D – you, for example. And 3D and non-3D together make up this earth life we experience. You are saying there is a form of non-3D that is not bound to 3D and it has different qualities.

Not quite, but you are on the trail. It is more the other way round: The non-3D that is not bound to 3D is vastly larger than the specialized form that is bound to 3D. To return to our stovetop analogy, we could say that all non-3D is metal, but only that part of the non-3D that is integrally connected to 3D is a burner.

Is this worth coining a new term to reduce confusion?

Perhaps. Try.

Well, what if we continue using non-3D as we have been using it, to depict the part of reality that we in 3D can experience – via ILC, for instance, or remote viewing, or unaided intuition or whatever. Then we need invent a word only to mean the non-3D as it exists without this close connection to the 3D implosion.

Yes, that is the idea. And you would call it, what?

Cosmic non-3D?

There are difficulties with that.

Yes, I can feel it. Well – I don’t know, uncoupled non-3D?

Closer but still not yet suitable.

External? Unaffiliated? Natural? Uncompressed? Ah! Uncoupled?

Uncoupled may work, but it will be decipherable only to those who already know what we mean.

I suppose we could say “non-binary,” meaning, not coupled to the 3D condition.

Non-binary is not an improvement over uncoupled. Either may serve.

So then, let’s have your capsule summary using this clarifying phrase.

Most of non-3D is non-binary (uncoupled), in that it has no limitation on it by any close relationship to a 3D condition. However, specialized cases in which non-3D provides one pole and 3D the opposite pole do exist. Non-coupled non-3D is vastly more common than coupled non-3D – but how would you experience it?

That sounds close to a division in reality.

Our rhetorical question has an answer, if you will pause to ponder it.

Oh. Through our own non-3D connection, of course.

Exactly. As you say, there are no absolute divisions in reality. However, remember that there are steps. The higher reality you once briefly experienced is kin to yours, but is not identical to it, as artwork you create is kin to you but not identical to who and what you are.

There’s always more to learn.

Yes, isn’t it good? You never need to be bored, never need to sigh and say, “I’ve seen it all.”

I for one have no criticisms of reality. I did, and for a long time, “but that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead.”

You like Abraham Lincoln’s quote and he was right, most people are about as happy as they are determined to be. It is a good world, a good life, and those who don’t know it now will know it at some point.

Our thanks for this, as always. What do we call it?

“Clarifying no-3D,” perhaps

Till next time, then.